Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
>"Shachar Shemesh" <wine-devel at shemesh.biz> wrote:
>>>>>>Eventually we have to implement bi-di support there without relying on any
>>>external libraries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BiDi is a $&!(@*#)$ complicated algorithm (excuse my language). Why on
>>earth should we insist on writing it ourselves?
>>>>>>We don't really have to write it from scratch, porting an existing code
>would suffice, but a difference between unicode char width (16 vs. 32 bit)
>makes it impossible to use any system unicode APIs.
>Lost you there. We are currently using ICU precisely because it does
have UTF-16 support.
> Another reason to have
>an internal implementation is to not depend on possible differences between
>implementations, differences in collation tables is an obvious example here.
>>Lost you there again. There is no dependence of BiDi on collation, or we
would use ICU for a lot more than only BiDi. ICU is an entire Unicode
solution, and does have all of those things.
Seriously, I don't see anyone here volunteering to maintain the BiDi
code, and I don't have the resources to chase Unicode around. I really
think using an external library is the right thing to do.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
http://www.lingnu.com/